You literally called anyone who didn't buy into your nonsense as only doing because they have an ego, entrenched in their beliefs and "clinging to
their textbooks", with all the implications that entails. You are a hypocrite who can only spam junk science YouTube videos and make ad hominem
attacks on those who disagree with you.

Why on earth would you think that sunspots are "windows" into the Sun's interior? They are simply cooler patches on the Sun's surface, caused by
concentrations of magnetic field flux inhibiting convection.

Being open-minded isn't about being willfully ignorant of current "mainstream" knowledge and lapping up blatant nonsense. That's having one's mind
firmly shut.

You keep crowing about how these quacks are sidelined because the "mainstream" isn't "open-minded" when the reality is that they're peddling abject
nonsense to people who are ignorant and gullible enough to buy into it. No conspiracy theories needed.

originally posted by: ConnectDots
What is required for that is enough courage and determination from people to go up against mainstream vested interests in the status
quo.

Science doesn't stop people from questioning it. In fact, it welcomes it - that's the only way it progresses.

Many open-minded researchers in science and technology are scared to death of the ridicule they are going to have to deal
with.

Really? Who? Name 5.

That's what the problem is.

No. The problem is people who argue against science with nothing but assumption and opinion.

Why do you think courts of law operate on the basis of *evidence* and not 'your opinion' ? If people like you were in charge, then you could accuse
anyone of anything with no evidence - only how you feel or what you think.

Nope. You're completely wrong in this case and I'm glad you sit at the back of the classroom doodling in your notebook and wondering why the other
kids get higher grades then you.

originally posted by: ConnectDots
Ridicule is a problem on the ATS Science and Technology forum.

I've seen physicist Wal Thornhill of the Thunderbolts Project called a "liar" here.

Perhaps at some point in the future, non-mainstream sources of information will be taken seriously.

Hope springs eternal.

Change the record mate. It's getting boring hearing the same thing from you every time someone asks you for proof or anything similar.

Do you remember in maths class at school, the teacher would tell you to "show your working" for any question in a test? Same thing here...these guys
you believe need to show their working (maths, predictions and experimental results) to be taken seriously. Yet they don't. I wonder why...

originally posted by: cooperton
I agree but the mainstream thought is that matter rules all, despite matter being mostly empty space and completely a side-effect of the electrical
activity of the atom.

originally posted by: cooperton
I agree but the mainstream thought is that matter rules all, despite matter being mostly empty space and completely a side-effect of the electrical
activity of the atom.

The space within the atom is not really empty, though, correct?

No, its empty. Unless you count the particles coming into existence and then disappearing.

The double-slit experiment insists that it is Conscious Observation that cause waveforms to collapse into particles:

If particles are subordinate to consciousness, then it seems impossible that particles/matter reacting randomly could have generated consciousness.
Similarly, a material explanation for the sun does not do it justice.

And before you say anything, the theory has some solid foundations, namely quantum tunnelling. Transistors work on quantum tunneling. If our
understanding of quantum mechanics was wrong, you would not have the computer you are typing on right now since computers are made of billions of
transistors.

To be honest with you, I'm not a physicist, though am deeply interested in this kind of thing. Other members will definitely have much better answers
for you regarding QM than i could ever give you

The double-slit experiment insists that it is Conscious Observation that cause waveforms to collapse into particles:

If particles are subordinate to consciousness, then it seems impossible that particles/matter reacting randomly could have generated consciousness.
Similarly, a material explanation for the sun does not do it justice.

The double slit experiment has absolutely nothing to do with consciousness.

It seems to me that whether or not light is a particle or a wave, and the double-slit experiment, is a different topic from the topic of what is
called "the vacuum," which supposedly is "empty space," yet still has these pesky particles that pop in and out of existence, coined "virtual
particles."

It seems to me that instead of naming the things "virtual particles" and continuing to describe space as empty, science should admit that space is
not empty, and should start focusing on it as a frontier for exploration.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.